IF you believe Sir Robin is a viable Allied strategy

[el cid again]

Then presumably you have a clue what it is Japan can do that makes it - in the words of one plyer in a current test game - "certain that the Allies must lose an area" -

so show me. Send me a Japanese first turn - and I will attempt to show you why an active defense is better.

In the course of time it should become clear who has it right.

[Nomad]

Please state exactly what you mean by "Sir Robin." There is active defense and active defense.

[Big B]

ORIGINAL: Nomad

Please state exactly what you mean by "Sir Robin." There is active defense and active defense.

I think he means that you can do anything you wish except move land units out of Malaya, PI, DEI - for use elsewhere and furthermore you should - never abandon Malaya (except for Singapore) - abandon Luzon (except for Manila) - abandon Java (except for Soerabaja) - etc.
El Cid is saying that "sir Robin"(*?) is the single worst thing any Allied player can do - and the best thing that can happen to any Japanese player....do I surmise correctly?


EDIT: As far as can see - the ONLY thing wrong with following a strategy of economy of force (I am personally tired of the taunt Sir Robin) in the game WitP - is that the game does not allow the Allied player to destroy infrastructure before the arrival of the Japanese - which was often done.
If you could do that - follow a scorched earth policy - the game would be perfect IMHO.

ORIGINAL: el cid again

ORIGINAL: anarchyintheuk

This seems more an argument about semantics than anything else. Is there truly an allied player that participates fully in the ideal of the Sir Robin and just buggers off? By that I mean evacuates all the frontline lcus, ships and squadrons that he can. Let's face it, most frontline lcus are toast. It suicidal to either reinforce or evacuate Malaya or the Phillipines and there are only a few lcus in the DEI worth saving (DAF, etc.). The state of rear area and initial reinforcement allied lcus only gets better by the day in filling out to&e, recovering damaged squads and eq, experience increases, etc. There's no point in committing them until ready.

Sir Robin really just concerns naval and air assets.
[\quote]

ORIGINAL: el cid again
REPLY: Let me be clear about this: Sir Robin is mainly about LAND units. And it is NOT being done AFTER initial battles show there is a problem - it is being done in the first days of the campaign - at a time virtually no Allied commander would know about any sort of major problem. They don't yet understand the range of enemy aircraft, the effectiveness of his torpedoes, or that the IJA is likely to win a battle when outgunnened and outnumbered 2:1. They abandon positions BEFORE they are attacked - and those undefended positions fall undamaged into enemy hands. This is even worse than the horrible defenses of Malaya and Philippines - NEI and Burma were not much less of a defensive disaster IRL - yet Sir Robin is doing far worse than any and all of these.


Sir Robin results in worse ALLIED scores by all measures. I wish this to be understood - so it won't be considered as an option.
If we cannot get this as a consensus understanding I either must modify RHS so it is impossible to move the LAND units that are wrongly being moved out of country - OR I must simply stipulate that any human player needs to agree not to do it (which in my view he has if he claims to want to honor the primary RHS house rule). It is not possible to get the design intent loss ratios if the forces do not engage. And they are NOT engaging.
[\quote]

[DuckofTindalos]

Well, the Japs will get ahead of their time table, obviously, but my main problem with this is that it's SO unhistorical and gamey. This could only happen in The Twilight Zone.

[TulliusDetritus]

All,

keep in mind that El Cid Again's RHS scenarios have this difference: Luzon is a fortress. On my H2H game they still resist on june in Baatan. Malaya was a nightmare as well. Of course, there is this other possibility: maybe I am an incompetent moron and should fire myself, but... the truth is I have used complete divisions, backed by elite infantry units, engineers, artillery and armored units, Armies HQ's, enough supplies, air raids, etc.

Compared with stock and CHS (which I played on the past), the allied positions in Southeast Asia are stronger when the war starts.

In stock, when you already know that they are weak (yes or yes) and that they will surrender pretty soon (yes or yes too) a deep defense is not backed by material forces, it is an armchair Generalissimo/Admiralissimo illusion. But in RHS it makes more sense.

So, from what I am seeing in his scenario, resisting is not only possible and reasonable but it will pay its dividends.

[Big B]

ORIGINAL: Terminus

Well, the Japs will get ahead of their time table, obviously, but my main problem with this is that it's SO unhistorical and gamey. This could only happen in The Twilight Zone.

But Mr T, stop and consider, which is "gamier" in the historical sense of the word...

1) Not withdrawing a garrison - so that the enemy has to destroy it, and in the process - "hopefully" damage an installation.
or
2) Evacuating a garrison in good order before the arrival of an overwhelming force - but before leaving - destroying everything of use to the enemy?

Unfortunately, WitP does not allow you to choose optin #2 - you must damage those facilities yourself with your own forces, after the enemy gains them.

But Option #1 is truly Gamey in the historical sense...
"Let's see, rather than pull back to regroup and make a stand or save what I can, I will simply use my men as human demolition charges - since, in this game, that is one quick way I may be able damage facilities...rather than bombing them to smithereens when the enemy occupies them - but that would have to wait until I get enough bombers"

I guess the debate is endless...

[Big B]

If this is truly only about RHS, I bow to El Cid.

However, it seemed to be about the disparaging 'Sir Robin' - and I assumed the topic covered stock WitP.

My error.

ORIGINAL: TulliusDetritus

All,

keep in mind that El Cid Again's RHS scenarios have this difference: Luzon is a fortress. On my H2H game they still resist on june in Baatan. Malaya was a nightmare as well. Of course, there is this other possibility: maybe I am an incompetent moron and should fire myself, but... the truth is I have used complete divisions, backed by elite infantry units, engineers, artillery and armored units, Armies HQ's, enough supplies, air raids, etc.

Compared to stock and CHS (which I played on the past), the allied positions in Southeast Asia are stronger when the war starts.

In stock, when you already know that they are weak (yes or yes) and that they will surrender pretty soon (yes or yes too) a deep defense is not backed by material forces, it is an armchair Generalissom/Admiralissimo illusion. But in RHS it makes more sense.

So, from what I am seeing in his scenario, resisting is not only is possible and reasonable but it will pay its dividends.

[TulliusDetritus]

"My error" -- Big B

Not necessarily yours. Maybe mine. I too assumed he was talking about his scenario (since he posts in the scenario section) and I could be wrong [:)]

[DuckofTindalos]

ORIGINAL: Big B

ORIGINAL: Terminus

Well, the Japs will get ahead of their time table, obviously, but my main problem with this is that it's SO unhistorical and gamey. This could only happen in The Twilight Zone.

But Mr T, stop and consider, which is "gamier" in the historical sense of the word...

1) Not withdrawing a garrison - so that the enemy has to destroy it, and in the process - "hopefully" damage an installation.
or
2) Evacuating a garrison in good order before the arrival of an overwhelming force - but before leaving - destroying everything of use to the enemy?

Unfortunately, WitP does not allow you to choose optin #2 - you must damage those facilities yourself with your own forces, after the enemy gains them.

But Option #1 is truly Gamey in the historical sense...
"Let's see, rather than pull back to regroup and make a stand or save what I can, I will simply use my men as human demolition charges - since, in this game, that is one quick way I may be able damage facilities...rather than bombing them to smithereens when the enemy occupies them - but that would have to wait until I get enough bombers"

I guess the debate is endless...

We don't disagree that it would be nice to do proper scorched earth, but that's not available.

[Big B]

No worries - contrary to any possible appearances, I have no ax to grind with anyone.[;)]

Like the rest of you - WitP is just a consuming and fascinating topic.[8D]

B

ORIGINAL: TulliusDetritus

"My error" -- Big B

Not necessarily yours. Maybe mine. I too assumed he was talking about his scenario (since he posts in the scenario section) and I could be wrong [:)]

[vettim89]

In truth the problem is really the Land Combat System (BEEP!: thread hijack warning). From the historical info we have the poorly trained. equipped, and often led Commonwealth, Phillipine, RA US, and Dutch troops could not stand up to the Japanese Army that had been fighting in China for the better part of a decade. The RL Allies folded before the oncoming Japanese.This is not to say that there weren't cases where the Allies put up stout defense, just that from a strategic point of view, it was an untenable situation.

The Allies failed to turn back any Japanese advance until August/September 1942 when the Australians repelled the Milne Bay invasion. That was followed by numerous battles on GC eventually leading to vicory. IMO troop quality and experience plus supplies finally came up enough at this point where the Allied armies could and did first resist and then defeat the Japanese.

So if "Sir Robin" means withdrawing unit fragments by sub and other means than ok its a bit gamey. But if "Sir Robin" is really the JFB screaming "Stand still so I can hit you", the RL Allies didn't/couldn't, why should your AFB opponents? If the latter is true then IMHO, the Japanese player needs to invade areas where the Allies have no choice but fight: Oz, India, HI, WCUSA (LOL)

To me what makes this game great is exploring the What If's. If the invasion of Oz/India is the ultimate Japanes What If, isn't the implementation of Sir RObin in whatever form really just another What If? How many of you JFB want to take me up in a game where you agree to not invade Oz, India, HI, New Zealand, New Caledonia, Samoa, or Alaska Proper if I agree to not Sir Robin?

[Big B]

vettim89, Good point.

Out of respect for El Cid, and not wishing to side track an RHS discussion - I will re-post this in the main witp forum - under Brave Sir Robin.

B

[el cid again]

ORIGINAL: Terminus

Well, the Japs will get ahead of their time table, obviously, but my main problem with this is that it's SO unhistorical and gamey. This could only happen in The Twilight Zone.

This is not totally unprecedented - but it isn't a common thing I am totally in harmony with Terminus either (and some will remember when it was impossible to contemplate). But he is absolutely right: it is unhistorical, it is gamey (and it is a clear violation of the primary RHS house rule never to do anything a historical commander would not do in whatever circumstances).

It would get general officers court martialed - and if you want to do that - and can justify doing that - you don't understand what historical gaming is about.

However - I have discovered an intelligent player who passionately believes it is STUPID if he does NOT do a Sir Robin with land units -
and so I want to demonstrate he is incorrect (or else to learn that the rest of us are wrong and we have a resident military genius).

It still is unhistorical and gamey - but I ALSO claim it does not work. That is, it represents the optimum best possible Allied strategy for maximizing JAPANESE power in mid and late 1942. It gives Japan the least damaged military force. It gives Japan the largest possible stocks of supplies/resources/etc. It gives Japan the largest possible base network. And it allows the Japanese to decide where they go unimpeded - Japan is then limited only by their own ability and desire to move things.

[el cid again]

ORIGINAL: Big B

ORIGINAL: Nomad

Please state exactly what you mean by "Sir Robin." There is active defense and active defense.

I think he means that you can do anything you wish except move land units out of Malaya, PI, DEI - for use elsewhere and furthermore you should - never abandon Malaya (except for Singapore) - abandon Luzon (except for Manila) - abandon Java (except for Soerabaja) - etc.
El Cid is saying that "sir Robin"(*?) is the single worst thing any Allied player can do - and the best thing that can happen to any Japanese player....do I surmise correctly?


EDIT: As far as can see - the ONLY thing wrong with following a strategy of economy of force (I am personally tired of the taunt Sir Robin) in the game WitP - is that the game does not allow the Allied player to destroy infrastructure before the arrival of the Japanese - which was often done.
If you could do that - follow a scorched earth policy - the game would be perfect IMHO.

ORIGINAL: el cid again

This is close to correct, but understated. While it is true that one might destroy infrastructure before the enemy got there - it was done but not often - one would look very silly if the enemy NEVER came - or took a long time coming. This is not popular with the owners of the infrastructure either, mostly (although sometimes THEY destroyed it too). But while we cannot do this in the game - and we should not want to do so over the entire SRA on the first day of the game - it does not change that it would NEVER happen on a comprehensive basis in real life - and should not be considered reasonable or historical play.

In defense of the WITP game system, leaving a unit with engineers at a location to destroy things IS reasonable. I would PREFER to be able to order it a day or two sooner - but you can see the gamey play we would get if they let you do it anytime. Someone would do it everywhere on the first day.

The political point is that one does not spend millions of pounds (or whatever) to build local forces - and send in Imperial forces - to defend Malaya (or whatever) - and then not even attempt to defend the place at all. Nor would the local Malay forces go fight for - New Zealand (say).
Any general who refused to fight for a rich Malaya with an entire army under his command would be relieved and possibly court martialed - and possibly justly so. It is his MISSION to fight for the place.

The psychological point is that the Allies cannot KNOW they are overmatched UNTIL they fight.

The military point is that the Allies cannot KNOW they are overmatched UNTIL they fight - and SOMETIMES they will actually NOT lose - but win. The exact meshing of plans on both sides will inevitably mean there must be a Wake island assault - which fails. The enemy will not perfectly predict where you move, where you support with air or naval or both, and luck will screw up his coordination sometimes. It is never wise to pretend you have perfect knowledge - since you cannot have it - and on the basis of that just throw in the towel. It is far smarter to force the enemy to engage - even if only moderately opposed - so you can find points at which you may embarass him - and so that you can attack his LOC or SLOC - which because he must fight is taxed (and not so over capacity it does not matter what happens to it).

[el cid again]

ORIGINAL: TulliusDetritus

All,

keep in mind that El Cid Again's RHS scenarios have this difference: Luzon is a fortress. On my H2H game they still resist on june in Baatan. Malaya was a nightmare as well. Of course, there is this other possibility: maybe I am an incompetent moron and should fire myself, but... the truth is I have used complete divisions, backed by elite infantry units, engineers, artillery and armored units, Armies HQ's, enough supplies, air raids, etc.

Compared with stock and CHS (which I played on the past), the allied positions in Southeast Asia are stronger when the war starts.

In stock, when you already know that they are weak (yes or yes) and that they will surrender pretty soon (yes or yes too) a deep defense is not backed by material forces, it is an armchair Generalissimo/Admiralissimo illusion. But in RHS it makes more sense.

So, from what I am seeing in his scenario, resisting is not only possible and reasonable but it will pay its dividends.

This is essentially correct but I wish to comment:

1) CREDIT for changes in RHS goes to the RHS Team as a whole and to Forum members who contribute comments without wanting to be more involved than that.

2) It was pointed out the Allies lacked artillery in Malaya - so we added it.

3) I myself am a student of the Philippine Army - and I added missile elements - and used a Philippine Army history (that is its name) to get the heavy weapons right. [You get the Philippine Constabulary - which formed up regular units - etc] I also am familiar with the Philippines geographically - I was advance home ported there - and my family by marriage takes me there: so I knew one of the "center four squares of the chessboard" was missing - Baguio City is an empty and malarial hex in all other forms of WITP - but in RHS it is resource rich, an airfield, mountainous, and malaria free - and immune to bombardment by battleships. Manila has industry - and stored oil - and resources are produced locally - so Luzon will MAKE supplies and fuel IF you keep Manila free of enemy units.

4) We got afraid India might be conquered too easily - and some players were doing that - so we added local defense forces in numbers.

5) We deliberatly "roughed up" China geographically speaking - added many units and special capabilities - and made several "local economies" - and added three significant river systems - well technically four (Yellow, Pearl, Upper Yangtze, Lower Yangtze). We upgraded some roads to trails - and made the RR net more useful - but carefully made it impossible to link by first class rail North china and Indochina (a Japanese objective and personal goal of Tojo IRL).

6) We made NEI more defensable - you can march from Sumatra almost to Timor without the need to embark on a ship. We carefully went over the OB - and had lots of help by a Forum member in the Netherlands - so many missing things are added - and some missing locations.

7) Burma had significant additions to locations by Forum requiest (over my objections due to slot limits). This makes defense more feasible at many location. It also got a river system - 'the road to Mandalay' is the Irrawaddy - and this permits a completely different kind of movement - and in some places - automatic supply (if you build ports to level 3) flows. River movement can be faster than rail movement - and it can be by a different route - so you can escape or flank the enemy (as IRL).

[Big B]

El Cid,

If you have one failing here - it is in steadfastly not recognizing that there are always many disparate paths to victory. You are limiting yourself to only one path of action - this is how wars are lost... in assuming the enemy must do as you foreordain.

IF events develop as you predict - you may prove correct in your analysis of counter action.

But you seem to me, to be too doctrinal, too inflexible. It seems you are granting no room for the unexpected as to what the enemy may do.

Suppose the Japanese player chooses to take Davao, Amboina, Kendari, Timor, and Darwin and then fortify them to strangle Allied shipping - while then moving on to take Anchorage, Johnston, and then the line islands, and then move out to take the Malaya area and Indian Ocean - or all of the above simultaneously?

Cutting off supply lines works both ways. The Japanese can also make the Allies whither on the vine - and then move in and collect the spoils.

I am sure that is what the aforementioned player is thinking as well (or some near variant of it).

I just think that it is fatal to be inflexible for either side.

B

PS - I won't bother you on your thread again.

ORIGINAL: el cid again

ORIGINAL: Terminus

Well, the Japs will get ahead of their time table, obviously, but my main problem with this is that it's SO unhistorical and gamey. This could only happen in The Twilight Zone.

This is not totally unprecedented - but it isn't a common thing I am totally in harmony with Terminus either (and some will remember when it was impossible to contemplate). But he is absolutely right: it is unhistorical, it is gamey (and it is a clear violation of the primary RHS house rule never to do anything a historical commander would not do in whatever circumstances).

It would get general officers court martialed - and if you want to do that - and can justify doing that - you don't understand what historical gaming is about.

However - I have discovered an intelligent player who passionately believes it is STUPID if he does NOT do a Sir Robin with land units -
and so I want to demonstrate he is incorrect (or else to learn that the rest of us are wrong and we have a resident military genius).

It still is unhistorical and gamey - but I ALSO claim it does not work. That is, it represents the optimum best possible Allied strategy for maximizing JAPANESE power in mid and late 1942. It gives Japan the least damaged military force. It gives Japan the largest possible stocks of supplies/resources/etc. It gives Japan the largest possible base network. And it allows the Japanese to decide where they go unimpeded - Japan is then limited only by their own ability and desire to move things.

[el cid again]

ORIGINAL: Big B

ORIGINAL: Terminus

Well, the Japs will get ahead of their time table, obviously, but my main problem with this is that it's SO unhistorical and gamey. This could only happen in The Twilight Zone.

But Mr T, stop and consider, which is "gamier" in the historical sense of the word...

1) Not withdrawing a garrison - so that the enemy has to destroy it, and in the process - "hopefully" damage an installation.
or
2) Evacuating a garrison in good order before the arrival of an overwhelming force - but before leaving - destroying everything of use to the enemy?

Unfortunately, WitP does not allow you to choose optin #2 - you must damage those facilities yourself with your own forces, after the enemy gains them.

But Option #1 is truly Gamey in the historical sense...
"Let's see, rather than pull back to regroup and make a stand or save what I can, I will simply use my men as human demolition charges - since, in this game, that is one quick way I may be able damage facilities...rather than bombing them to smithereens when the enemy occupies them - but that would have to wait until I get enough bombers"

I guess the debate is endless...

Since you have many units, different in size and function, there is a reasonable middle ground. You are NOT required to EITHER

a) abandon a position altogehter OR

b) keep everything there

You can leave a defense unit - one with engineers that will demolish - and evacuate the rest. You ALSO can withdraw part of that unit sometimes as well (I use submarines) to help it rebuild. And note that most units will rebuild automatically (but not Dutch or Philippine units) - you don't lose them forever - just for a while.

Nor is it correct to think "every one in a unit that is lost killed" - IRL and in terms of game theory - a unit that is lost is "disorganized and no longer useful" and elements of it are either taken prisoner or escape in small packets without heavy equipment. They are not "human demolition charges" - just the "screen" used to identify where the enemy has what - which is valuable information you can use to decide when and where to attack him (or use to decide where to defend next in strength). These units may be lost as military assets but they are not killed in the sense everyone - or most - are dead.

[el cid again]

ORIGINAL: TulliusDetritus

"My error" -- Big B

Not necessarily yours. Maybe mine. I too assumed he was talking about his scenario (since he posts in the scenario section) and I could be wrong [:)]

Or maybe mine. I think of RHS as a variant of CHS - and nothing I know indicates it is radically different - just more developed. Certainly CHS has many of the added locations we use - and many added units as well. Not only did RHS start with CHS, but lots of things were added to both at the same time, and some were backfitted to CHS after we created them for RHS. But MAYBE there is a radical difference I am not aware of: I ASSUME sir robin is bad strategy in ALL forms of WITP - and it should be - but maybe I am wrong about that.

[el cid again]

ORIGINAL: Terminus

ORIGINAL: Big B

ORIGINAL: Terminus

Well, the Japs will get ahead of their time table, obviously, but my main problem with this is that it's SO unhistorical and gamey. This could only happen in The Twilight Zone.

But Mr T, stop and consider, which is "gamier" in the historical sense of the word...

1) Not withdrawing a garrison - so that the enemy has to destroy it, and in the process - "hopefully" damage an installation.
or
2) Evacuating a garrison in good order before the arrival of an overwhelming force - but before leaving - destroying everything of use to the enemy?

Unfortunately, WitP does not allow you to choose optin #2 - you must damage those facilities yourself with your own forces, after the enemy gains them.

But Option #1 is truly Gamey in the historical sense...
"Let's see, rather than pull back to regroup and make a stand or save what I can, I will simply use my men as human demolition charges - since, in this game, that is one quick way I may be able damage facilities...rather than bombing them to smithereens when the enemy occupies them - but that would have to wait until I get enough bombers"

I guess the debate is endless...

We don't disagree that it would be nice to do proper scorched earth, but that's not available.

IF ANYONE wants a "proper scorched earth" for a game - and it is rational - I will do it for them. Tell me what points have what damage - and I INCLUDE the infrastructure (e.g. rail lines) - and I will pop it out for you. Not hard. We have a hint of this in the RHS Switcher program - and some day this may be a player controlled thing on a broad basis - but I can do it by hand. I will always contribute to a good game for anyone -
and if that does not include "destroy every mine and factory in the SRA" - but something some commander MIGHT really do - no problem. Nor any need to wait - I can crank it out in hours - or less.

[el cid again]

ORIGINAL: vettim89

In truth the problem is really the Land Combat System (BEEP!: thread hijack warning). From the historical info we have the poorly trained. equipped, and often led Commonwealth, Phillipine, RA US, and Dutch troops could not stand up to the Japanese Army that had been fighting in China for the better part of a decade. The RL Allies folded before the oncoming Japanese.This is not to say that there weren't cases where the Allies put up stout defense, just that from a strategic point of view, it was an untenable situation.

The Allies failed to turn back any Japanese advance until August/September 1942 when the Australians repelled the Milne Bay invasion. That was followed by numerous battles on GC eventually leading to vicory. IMO troop quality and experience plus supplies finally came up enough at this point where the Allied armies could and did first resist and then defeat the Japanese.

So if "Sir Robin" means withdrawing unit fragments by sub and other means than ok its a bit gamey. But if "Sir Robin" is really the JFB screaming "Stand still so I can hit you", the RL Allies didn't/couldn't, why should your AFB opponents? If the latter is true then IMHO, the Japanese player needs to invade areas where the Allies have no choice but fight: Oz, India, HI, WCUSA (LOL)

To me what makes this game great is exploring the What If's. If the invasion of Oz/India is the ultimate Japanes What If, isn't the implementation of Sir RObin in whatever form really just another What If? How many of you JFB want to take me up in a game where you agree to not invade Oz, India, HI, New Zealand, New Caledonia, Samoa, or Alaska Proper if I agree to not Sir Robin?

In the first instance, it was NEVER a Japanese intention to conquer India or Australia. AFTER the initial offensive was unexpectedly successful, Adm Ukagi asked a staff officer to look at future possible options - and one of those did include a partial invasion of Australia - but when reviewed by IJA it was revealed to be a logistic impossibility - and required ten divisions which were not available (the whole SRA was invaded with less). The Japanese strategy was to set up an autarky - and they mainly needed oil - and a defensable SLOC for it - since coal (2/3 of all imports by weight), iron ore and other resources were available either on he mainland of Asia or near the oil centers (e.g. the largest copper mine in Asia is on Luzon - which guards the SLOC to NEI).

In the second instance, there are political realities. NEI is a de facto country in its own right. So is the Philippines. These places are not interested in being completely overrun without a fight. Nor does Imperial politics make sense if you don't impress the natives: even if you must lose a Burma - you want them to believe you are powerful - so you can come back and rule. There is a combination of economics and politics along the lines of "where your treasure is, there is your heart also": you cannot invest vast sums in the defense of Malaya (or wherever) only to abandon the place without a fight. It makes no legal or political sense to do that. No one would consider it EVEN IF they knew what was going to happen ahead of time - which they don't know.

In the third instance, it is possible to hurt the Japanese right away - up front - even day one. The Wake Island landing is an example. In a current game (ironically with a Sir Robin advocate) I nearly lost an entire division of Japanese troops at sea due to a bold move he made (and a failure on the part of my recon to detect it - which I exaserbated by experimenting with a rule that limits recon according to the number of search planes). Only his failure to follow up saved the division - I could not have saved it whatever I did. The Philippine Scouts were able to stop the IJA consistently - green though they were: they fell back because units on their flanks could not hold. Had they been ordered to fall back on Baguio City and the Iligan Valley instead of Bataan - they might NEVER have been driven to surrender. In any case, the land units are just part of the package: land defense forces enemy concentration to engage; enemy concentration is a VICTORY by itself NO MATTER WHAT happens.

Lets stop a moment and think about that: IF you force him to concentrate, he must engage fewer points than he otherwise could - and every point NOT engaged is a victory for you (my air defense warfare thinking comes out here - that is how AAW guys think).

But there is more: enemy concentration means he must feed the concentration logistically - and YOU get to attack the LOC - and it is a taxed one - so every thing you do to it matters to him in a sense it does not when he is untaxed - and just building up vast supplies forward.

Bottom line: Sir Robin is unrealistic, politically impossible BUT ALSO militarily LESS effective than fighting - IF you think in a combined arms way - it is not just about land units - but how land units contribute to limiting enemy options - and forcing him to have a few vital forward LOC which sometimes you can hurt - or even cut.

I seek a player who passionately "knows" I am wrong - and I want to openly test who is right. I will let that player who "knows" what the Japanese can do have them do it - while I show how to muck it up - without running on a wholesale basis.